Dynamics in Aceh and North Sumatera After the Twin Disasters
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TI 2013-115/VIII Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Dynamics in Aceh and North Sumatera after the Twin Disasters Aloysius Gunadi Brataa,b Henri L.F. de Groota,c,d Piet Rietvelda,c a Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; b Atma Jaya Yogyakarta University, Department of Economics, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; c Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; d Ecorys NEI, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tinbergen Institute is the graduate school and research institute in economics of Erasmus University Rotterdam, the University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam. More TI discussion papers can be downloaded at http://www.tinbergen.nl Tinbergen Institute has two locations: Tinbergen Institute Amsterdam Gustav Mahlerplein 117 1082 MS Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)20 525 1600 Tinbergen Institute Rotterdam Burg. Oudlaan 50 3062 PA Rotterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)10 408 8900 Fax: +31(0)10 408 9031 Duisenberg school of finance is a collaboration of the Dutch financial sector and universities, with the ambition to support innovative research and offer top quality academic education in core areas of finance. DSF research papers can be downloaded at: http://www.dsf.nl/ Duisenberg school of finance Gustav Mahlerplein 117 1082 MS Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)20 525 8579 Dynamics in Aceh and North Sumatera after the Twin Disasters An investigation into the relevance of the locational fundamental theory Aloysius Gunadi Brataa,b, Henri L.F. de Groota,c,d and Piet Rietvelda,c a VU University Amsterdam, Department of Spatial Economics, The Netherlands b Atma Jaya Yogyakarta University, Department of Economics, Indonesia c Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands d Ecorys NEI, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Abstract This paper analyzes the impact of the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 and the Nias earthquake in 2005 on population dynamic across regions in Aceh and North Sumatera. We find no evidence that the disasters affected the regularity of size-distribution of the regions. The estimates of a population growth model yield clear evidence that the disasters had only a temporary impact. This study provides indicative evidence for the relevance of the locational fundamental theory and rejects the random growth explanation. Keywords : natural disaster; population growth; rank-size distribution JEL code : R11, R12, Q54 “A city is hard to kill, in part because of its strategic geographical location, its concentrated, persisting stock of physical capital, and even more because of the memories, motives, and skill of its inhabitants.” (Kevin Lynch, 1972: 3-4, cited by Vale and Campanella 2005: 347) 1. Introduction There are several stylized facts with regard to the growth of cities across countries. Cities in many countries are growing according to a regular pattern, both in terms of their size (city population) and their rank in a system of cities. The regularity over decades or centuries means that even large shocks did not affect the distribution of cities permanently. This regularity became a fascinating ‘law’ for economists to evaluate and to explain theoretically (see, for instance, Gabaix and Ioannides, 2004; Krugman, 1996; Nitsch, 2005). Another dimension concerns the location of cities. Vale and Campanella (2005) conclude that one of the city resilience axioms is the power of place which contributes to city resilience after it was destructed by a major disaster. They derived this from studies on the resilience of cities in different time periods, places and cultures. Although this conclusion is based on a limited number of studies on individual cities that have been destroyed by large shocks, it provides evidence that cities which have locational advantages will rebound and subsequently keep their high rank in the distribution of cities. In the same spirit, Davis and Weinstein (2002), Brakman et al. (2004) and Bosker et al. (2008) used the bombing of Japan and German during the second World War (WW-II) as “quasi natural experiments” and found that the impact of shocks on the city-size distribution is only temporary and supports the locational fundamental theory. Investigating another post WW-II “natural experiment” – the bombing of Vietnam by the US – Miguel and Roland (2011) did not find strong evidence of permanent effects from this bombing on local poverty rates, consumption levels, infrastructure, literacy, or population density. They used a different approach, but the main conclusion is parallel to Japan and German cases, which is that the bombing affected Vietnam only temporary. Basically, locational fundamentals theory states that natural advantage or the physical landscape (first nature advantages such as access to the sea, river, or availability of natural 1 resources), as initial conditions, determines the existence as well as the growth of cities (see, for instance, Fujita and Mori, 1996; Krugman, 1996). These permanent features give benefits to the locations as an excellent site for economic activity (Davis and Weinstein, 2002) and as such have affected the formation and evolution of the size of a location. It is oftentimes argued that in normal situations, the importance of such initial conditions should become smaller, but their impacts may still persist, for instance through cumulative process by which first nature advantages create second nature advantages. Against this background, it is interesting to see how the growth and the position of a city in the rank size distribution is affected by extreme events: do the initial locational advantages play an important role in reverting the growth of the city after the shock? Following Davis and Weinstein (2002), the main aim of this paper is to investigate the relevance of the locational fundamental theory in a very specific situation, viz. the cross- regions in Northern Sumatera (Aceh and North Sumatera province) after the Indian Ocean tsunami and the Nias earthquake. Since most empirical studies on urban growth focus on the developed countries, taking Northern Sumatera as a “natural laboratory” will contribute to recent empirical studies on developing countries such as for instance China (Anderson and Ge, 2005; Chen et al., 2010), Malaysia (Soo, 2007), or on growth of sub-national (state) population in India, China and Brazil (Soo, 2010). Another important issue in studying this size distribution to which we aim to contribute is the appropriate urban-regional unit of observation. In their recent papers, Giesen and Suedekum (2011) and González-Val and Sanso-Navarro (2010) argue that Zipf’s law can also hold within regions of a country. Applying three different concepts of regions in Germany (random regions, the German Federal States, and a spatial club of cities), Giesen and Suedekum show that city size distributions at national and regional levels tend to follow a power law. A similar message on this issue also emerged when regions in the USA were clustered as “Megapolitan Areas” (see Berry and Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2011). These studies argue in favour of using data for single regions. This may be particularly relevant for regions such as Aceh and Nias in large developing countries such Indonesia. Based on our empirical work, we conclude there are no significant changes of relative positions of regions in Aceh and North Sumatera, despite the fact that they have been hit by big disasters. Post- and pre-disaster ranks are highly correlated as well as population size. 2 Furthermore, the twin disasters did not affect the regularity of the size distribution of regions in Aceh and North Sumatera. The estimated population growth model yields clear evidence that the twin disasters had only a temporary impact. Overall, this study provides indicative evidence that the locational fundamental theory holds. The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The next section provides some relevant background. In Section 3, we discuss our framework to investigate the impact of the twin disasters on population dynamics. We proceed with results and discussion in Section 4. Secction 5 concludes. 2. Setting the Scene The Indian Ocean tsunami occurred after a massive earthquake with 9.3 magnitudes (on the Richter scale) of the west coast of Sumatra on December 26, 2004. The Nias earthquake occurred a couple of months later on March 28, 2005 (see Figure 1). There is no doubt that these natural disasters meet the basic criteria for ‘natural experiments’ in that they are exogenous, large, variable, and purely temporary (cf. Davis and Weinstein, 2008). More than 300,000 people were killed by the giant tsunami which also resulted in huge physical destruction. Meanwhile, the Nias earthquake with 8.7 magnitudes on the Richter scale killed more than 900 people, and strongly affected the Nias island. In response to these natural disasters, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) established the Agency for the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Aceh and Nias.1 The operation of this agency is regarded as one of the largest humanitarian programmes in history with nearly 500 participating actors (see Takahashi et al., 2007; Masyarafah and McKeon, 2008). 1 This agency, which is locally known as BRR (Badan Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi), was established in 2005 and was operational for four years, based in Banda Aceh with a regional office in Nias and a representative office in Jakarta. It coordinated and jointly implemented a community-driven recovery program for Aceh and Nias. See http://kc.monevacehnias.bappenas.go.id/Modules/Home-Accordion/about-brr.html.